Re: Flymake refactored

[joaotavora@gmail.com (João Távora)]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> Ah, in which case it's not that the old flymake.el worked, but that it
> croaked more discretely?  That would be a good explanation.

Yes that's it. And "croaked" is a really funny word :-)

>> I don't see what flymake.el can do about it, since it is was designed
>> to be agnostic to the way backends allocate resources to start
>> syntax checks.
>
> The problem can be fixed "anywhere" between desktop.el and make-process.
>
> There's a good argument that desktop.el should load buffers more lazily.

Would be hard to predict how lazy it has to be fix these issues.

> There's also a good argument to be made that flymake.el should itself work
> more lazily (don't start checking until the buffer is actually
> displayed, for example).

I like this one. So flymake-mode either starts the check or does
something to window-configuration-change-hook? Is that the idea?

> I think asking backends to perform the throttling is a bad idea: we want
> the backends to be as lean/simple/concise as possible.

If they used the make-process helper, they would keep these
qualities. But on second thought the whole idea behind throttling
(make-process or backend) seems too feeble to be worth the effort. It
only works cooperatively, if all process creation uses it. If it is
optional, it's not worth it.